According to the World Health Organization, just over 1.8 million COVID deaths were reported in 2020, the first year of the great scare, before the shots were rolled out. A year earlier, over a million people died worldwide due to a common bacteria but no one suggested locking people into their homes or jabbing them with experimental potions.However, that may be about to change.&nbsp;<h4 id="">One million deaths a year</h4>The story doesn’t start with the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, but they are certainly part of it. In 2022, <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)02185-7/fulltext" id="">The Lancet</a> published an article on an “urgent global public health priority” describing research partially funded by the Foundation into 33 different types of bacteria that threaten people’s health worldwide. Apparently, these 33 pathogens are responsible for 13.6 percent of all global deaths, and the real villain of the 33 is Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus) which is the most deadly of them all, killing around a million people every year.<blockquote id="">From an estimated 13.7 million infection-related deaths in 2019, there were 7.7 million deaths associated with the 33 bacterial pathogens (both resistant and susceptible to antimicrobials) across the 11 infectious syndromes estimated in this study...</blockquote><blockquote id="">S. aureus&nbsp;was the leading bacterial cause of death in 135 countries and was also associated with the most deaths in individuals older than 15 years, globally.</blockquote>&nbsp;<h4 id="">Goodbye to antibiotics</h4>While the research mentioned the importance of interventions such as health education, addressing malnutrition, improving hygiene and sanitation, and providing access to antibiotics, the article also stressed a need to develop vaccines to combat common bacteria.Antibiotics are not always the ideal way of dealing with pathogens, the authors write, for a number of reasons. First, they are expensive and not all countries can afford a sufficient supply. Then, even when there is access to the necessary drugs, they may not be dispensed wisely, which can worsen the already huge problem of antibiotic resistance. This is a particular problem in what the article calls “low-income and middle-income countries.”Therefore, they suggest that vaccines could be a better solution to the problem of bacterial infection, especially as the “sobering reality is that a high burden of treatable infections occur in very young age groups.”<blockquote id="">Implementation and uptake of vaccines for bacteria ... can directly reduce the burden of bacterial infections, and new generations of vaccines will target older age groups that we have found are significantly affected by this bacterial agent.</blockquote>&nbsp;<h4 id="">‘The world needs a staph vaccine’ — suddenly?</h4>If you haven’t heard about vaccinating against S aureus before, that’s not surprising. Researchers have been attempting to design an effective vaccine against staph infections for over 25 years, with no success. Around 14 different vaccine prototypes have been developed, tested, and retired in frustration. Millions of dollars have been spent on fruitless pursuits. Now, however, a researcher from the University of California, San Diego, thinks he may have cracked the problem and that a safe and effective S aureus vaccine is finally on the way.Dr. George Liu’s work is featured in a <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2821997?guestAccessKey=91b97a8a-e22f-4163-b6b6-c2d775a80623&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_alert-jama&utm_content=olf&utm_term=080224&adv=" id="">JAMA </a>article published on August 2, 2024. Unlike the article in The Lancet, this article begins from a position neatly expressed in its title:<blockquote id="">The world needs a staph vaccine — new research could bring it a step closer.</blockquote>Why would the world need a staph vaccine when there are effective antibiotics for every single one of the 33 most dangerous pathogens The Lancet researched?‍The answer, in a nutshell, is that the mainstream medical research community think that our immune systems are inherently defective. Therefore, scientists must step into the breach and save mankind from deadly pathogens. Antibiotics were good in their day, but vaccines hold a different kind of promise. Let’s take a deeper dive into the murky waters of scientific hubris and see what we find.&nbsp;<h4 id="">A vaccine worse than placebo?</h4>JAMA’s article starts out by describing a number of failed attempts at developing an S aureus vaccine. In 2011, Merck had to call a halt to its clinical trials after <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1674236" id="">data </a>showed the vaccine was worse than placebo:<blockquote id="">Participants in the trial who developed an&nbsp;S aureus&nbsp;infection were&nbsp;more likely to die&nbsp;if they had received the vaccine than if they had gotten the placebo shot. </blockquote>Merck had gotten all the way to phase 3 of its vaccine trials — meaning that phase 1 trials, testing the vaccine on mice, had gone well, and also that phase 2, testing on a small cohort of humans, had appeared successful. 8,031 people in 26 countries were enrolled in the phase 3 trials. Significantly more people died in the vaccine cohort than in the placebo cohort. It wasn’t even close:<blockquote id="">... the mortality rate in patients with staphylococcal infections was significantly higher among V710 vaccine than placebo recipients ... Significantly more patients with postoperative S aureus infections died in the vaccine group...</blockquote><blockquote id="">... [all this] yielding respective mortality rates of 23.0 [vaccine] and 4.2 [placebo] per 100 person-years.</blockquote>&nbsp;Merck also had to face the fact that the vaccine appeared to be causing multiorgan failure. The trial results stated that,<blockquote id="">... postoperative multiorgan failure developed more commonly in [vaccine] recipients.</blockquote>This was a very generous way of describing how 8 people in the vaccine cohort died due to multiorgan failure, as opposed to zero people in the placebo cohort.That is, the vaccine was exposed as a dire and deadly failure.&nbsp;In 2012, another pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, decided to test its own S aureus vaccine prototype. JAMA describes how,<blockquote id="">Based on promising efficacy data in mice, Pfizer tested it&nbsp;first among healthy adults&nbsp;and then in more than&nbsp;3,000 patients&nbsp;undergoing elective surgeries.</blockquote>Within a few years, it became clear that, once again, a staph vaccine had failed.<blockquote id="">Serum data&nbsp;showed that although patients who had received it developed antibodies to&nbsp;S aureus, they contracted the infection at the same rate as the placebo group.</blockquote>It was then that Dr. Liu realized that “what we needed is something that could explain not just one vaccine, but lots of vaccines, not working.And he found an explanation.&nbsp;<h4 id="">Staphylococcus aureus — friend or foe?</h4>The key to the puzzle is something with which those who have been following the sad trajectory of the COVID shots will be familiar: immune imprinting.S aureus, like many other tiny organisms, is what scientists call a “pathobiont.” That is to say, it’s a pathogen but one that lives with us quite happily — until it doesn’t. Then, if we’re not careful, it might kill us.Although Staphylococcus aureus sounds scary, around 50 percent of children and 30 percent of adults are colonized with it and never even realize it. For the most part, it stays in the nose, on the skin, or in the gastrointestinal tract, and doesn’t get any further. Problems generally start only if we get a deep cut or undergo surgery, when the bacteria can enter the bloodstream.<blockquote id="">Given the chance to cross into the blood, lung, or soft tissue,&nbsp;S aureus&nbsp;can become lethal. Medical devices, surgical procedures, uncovered wounds, and injection drug use are all&nbsp;common ways&nbsp;people contract&nbsp;S aureus&nbsp;infections, which&nbsp;can lead to&nbsp;sepsis, pneumonia, endocarditis, and bone infections.</blockquote>&nbsp;<h4 id="">Scientists describe our immune systems as ‘faulty’</h4>Dr. Liu realized that while humans in clinical trials for S aureus vaccine started out, for the most part, colonized with the bacteria, the mice in phase 1 trials who seemed to benefit from the vaccine had no known prior exposure to S aureus. So he conducted an experiment, infecting mice with S aureus before trialing the vaccine on them, and found that the vaccine no longer protected them from the bacteria when they were next exposed.According to Dr. Liu, S aureus has “learned to hack” the immune system, getting around our natural defenses and warping natural immunity in such a way that instead of eliminating S aureus from our bodies when we encounter it, we allow it to hang around — which can turn out badly.<blockquote id="">[S aureus] has a means of manipulating the immune system for its own protection, rendering host defenses and classic vaccine strategies nonprotective.</blockquote>Dr. Liu’s understanding is that bacteria are always supposed to be destroyed by our immune system (apparently regardless of whether they are currently causing trouble or not). What was happening instead was that the infected mice produced antibodies that had an “extra sugar group” which interrupted the process and allowed the S aureus to survive.While it is precisely this “faulty immune response” (as JAMA describes it) that enables us to coexist with S aureus, “it also undermines vaccination.” Why?<blockquote id="">When a mouse or a person who was already exposed to the bacteria is vaccinated against it, their immune system preferentially recalls the original immune response instead of building a new protective one based on the vaccine.</blockquote>‍<h4 id="">What you don’t know (about antigens) can’t hurt you...</h4>Calling the original immune response “faulty” and the vaccine-induced response “protective” may be an incredible distortion of the truth. Pfizer’s vaccine prototype utilized 4 different S aureus antigens, while other vaccine attempts used up to 8. But S aureus has <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7987813/" id="">at least 79 antigens</a> and probably many more. Each of them causes the human immune system to react in a different way. Liu and his team claim to know that the bacteria’s “dominant antigen” is the one that “induces the non-protective antibodies,” and that targeting “subdominant antigenic regions” with their vaccine will protect people from S aureus.<blockquote id="">The study also showed some promise in targeting so-called subdominant antigens. A pathogen like&nbsp;S aureus&nbsp;has multiple antigens, and some elicit a bigger immune response than others. The bacteria’s dominant antigen, iron-regulated surface determinant B, or IsdB, induces the nonprotective antibodies. Liu’s team found it more effective to target subdominant antigenic regions that elicit a smaller immune response but may not be protected by faulty immune imprinting.</blockquote>What they are not saying is that using a vaccine to imprint the immune system with a response to just 8 antigens causes humans to lose out on the immune responses to the dozens of other antigens they would otherwise have made when encountering S aureus — and no one knows what effect that will have.&nbsp;<h4 id="">Would we really all die without The Science?</h4>What this means is that vaccinating only makes sense if you believe that S aureus is close to 100-percent fatal if ever it gets into your bloodstream. That is to say, the human immune system, as G-d designed it, is incapable of dealing with a bacterial infection which is why it’s vital that scientists intervene with vaccines. That actually is what many scientists believe, including Juliane Bubeck-Wardenburg, MD, PhD, division director of pediatric critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, who told JAMA that,<blockquote id="">It’s very difficult to rewire an existing immune response once it’s already established on a trajectory that is unfavorable.” [emphasis added]</blockquote>Just how unfavorable is this trajectory? While S aureus can be fatal once in the bloodstream, most people do survive; 65 percent of them, in fact. That’s even though around 50 percent of S aureus strains found in hospitals are resistant to multiple antibiotics.&nbsp;<h4 id="">Brave New World, here we come</h4>Dr. Chris Montgomery, a critical care physician also quoted in the article, still comes down firmly on the side of nurture vs. nature. Meaning, get in there first with the vaccine before the person ever encounters S aureus, and avoid that first “faulty” immune response that ruins everything for vaccines forever after.<blockquote id="">Vaccinating infants could allow the immunization to take effect before&nbsp;S aureus&nbsp;fully imprints the immune system, he noted.</blockquote>(This is despite the fact that he also told JAMA that vaccinated patients who died during trials had “plenty of antibody” and that it was their nonexistent T cell response that seemed to be the real problem.)The JAMA author does not suggest any possible drawbacks to injecting babies with S aureus vaccines, even though the article describes a very considerable drawback that emerged in Merck’s trials, namely the multiorgan failure that the vaccine appeared to induce and the possibility that this is caused by an over-the-top inflammatory response to the vaccine.In effect, preemptively vaccinating everyone against S aureus is like putting everyone’s immune systems into overdrive just in case a bacterial infection ever gets into their bloodstream, which would be fine if the danger was just waiting to pounce but is more likely to be wasteful and exhausting considering that most of us, most of the time, are managing just fine with a bit of S aureus hanging around.&nbsp;If a Staphylococcus aureus vaccine is ever added to the newborn vaccination schedule (or, worse, given to pregnant women), there will be very few mothers who know enough to weigh the risks and benefits and make an educated decision for the welfare of their child.And how should they be expected to do so, when even Dr. Montgomery, a huge vaccine fan, admits,<blockquote id="">If we don’t know what is truly protective in humans then everything that we are doing in preclinical models is just guessing — informed guessing but guessing nonetheless.</blockquote>‍The information contained in this article is for educational and information purposes only and is not intended as health, medical, financial or legal advice. Always consult a physician, lawyer or other qualified professional regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition, health objectives or legal or financial issues.

Are vaccines set to replace antibiotics?

Scientists believe vaccines are needed to override 'faulty immune systems'

<h2 id="">Vaccine science - a simplistic explanation </h2>Vaccines, we are told, provoke an immune reaction to a weakened or dead pathogen, so, if we come in contact with the wild-type pathogen, our immune cells remember it and attack the germ right away. This is how the WHO (World Health Organization) <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/vaccines-and-immunization-what-is-vaccination" target="_blank" id="">explains</a> the way vaccines work:<blockquote id="">Vaccines reduce risks of getting a disease by working with your body’s natural defenses to build protection. When you get a vaccine, your immune system responds. It:</blockquote><blockquote id="">◾ Recognizes the invading germ, such as the virus or bacteria. ◾ Produces antibodies. Antibodies are proteins produced naturally by the immune system to fight disease. ◾ Remembers the disease and how to fight it. If you are then exposed to the germ in the future, your immune system can quickly destroy it before you become unwell.</blockquote><blockquote id="">The vaccine is therefore a safe and clever way to produce an immune response in the body, without causing illness.</blockquote><blockquote id="">Our immune systems are designed to remember. Once exposed to one or more doses of a vaccine, we typically remain protected against a disease for years, decades or even a lifetime. This is what makes vaccines so effective. Rather than treating a disease after it occurs, vaccines prevent us in the first instance from getting sick.</blockquote>⇒This is a very simple way of describing how vaccines interact with the immune system, but is that the whole story? Could the immune system be that simple and uncomplicated? Are vaccines fool proof? <h2 id="">Th1 and Th2 immune systems </h2>The immune responses recognized over the past century, and upon which vaccinology is based, are the cell-mediated Th1 and humoral-mediated Th2 responses. When someone gets sick, germs that have entered his/her body through the nose or mouth enter the person's cells, provoking a cell-mediated or Th1 response. Th stands for T-helper. They are a type of white blood cells that recognize foreign bodies in the cells and trigger the innate immune response, as guest writer Dr. David Jockers <a href="https://thyroidnation.com/th1-th2-connection-immune-system/" target="_blank" id="">wrote</a> for Thyroid Nation.Th2 cells, on the other hand, are the body's defense against foreign bodies found outside the cell. This system stimulates the production of antibodies and is called the acquired immune response. This system stimulates the production of antibodies in response to pathogens found outside the cells. This means that the body's innate immune system will initially attack any foreign body with a non-specific (Th1) immune response. The (Th2) humoral response is more specific; it develops antibodies to attack a specific germ. It will take care of those germs that evaded the innate immune system. <h2 id="">Vaccines vs. natural immunity</h2>‍Vaccines primarily work with the Th2 system, since the antigen and adjuvants in the vaccine are injected into your limbs, avoiding the normal pathways of illness, the nose and mouth, from where the germs would first enter the cells and encounter the innate immune system. A healthy immune system balances itself between Th1 and Th2, Dr. Jockers explains.<blockquote id="">In a healthy immune system, these groups of T helper cells work synergistically to balance the system. They become more active in response to any increase in pathogens or toxins but then they stabilize and reduce their cytotoxic effects once the threat is eradicated.</blockquote><blockquote id="">The key to a strong immune system is balance and coordination. The TH -1 system is classified by Killer T cells, T helper cells, and T suppressor cells. When we have too many T suppressor cells our immune system is too weak and we get colds/fevers/flu’s. When the Killers are too many or the helpers and suppressors too little we end up with a poorly coordinated immune response that damages our own tissue. This is commonly seen in autoimmune disorders.</blockquote><h3 id="">Vaccines prevent the development of a balanced immune system</h3>During pregnancy a mother's immune system is predominantly Th2 in order to prevent her innate immune system from recognizing the fetus as a foreign body and aborting the baby. Consequently, babies are born with an underdeveloped and unbalanced immune system that leans towards Th2. Since the vaccines also shift the immune system towards Th2, infants and children who are vaccinated do not have the opportunity to develop a balanced immune system. <blockquote id="">At birth, an infant’s immune system is immature and relies on humoral or antibody immunity. As it encounters infectious pathogens and builds symbiotic microbial cultures it develops a robust cellular immunity. Various environmental factors such as the use of antibiotics and vaccines interfere with the development of a healthy cellular immune response. This can be the cause of a TH-2 dominance and resulting hyper-inflammatory conditions. (Emphasis added.)</blockquote><h3 id="">Can children survive without vaccines?</h3>BMJ science Editor Abi Berger in his science commentary "Th1 and Th2 responses: what are they?" <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27457/" target="_blank" id="">explains</a> that Th1 immune responses are by necessity inflammatory while Th2 are anti-inflammatory. An excess of Th2 can lead to atopy (a tendency to develop allergic diseases due to a heightened immune response allergens). He concludes with a short discussion of how an infant's immune system is skewed towards Th2, though he concludes that vaccines do not cause atopy and that the benefit of vaccines outweighs their danger, as he believes a failure to vaccinate would endanger a child's life.<blockquote id="">The optimal scenario would therefore seem to be that humans should produce a well balanced Th1 and Th2 response, suited to the immune challenge.</blockquote><blockquote id="">. . . </blockquote><blockquote id="">Some people have suggested that immunisation programmes (and the subsequent reduction in microbiological exposure) are responsible for the increasing incidence of atopy. There is, however, no evidence that immunisation causes atopy. Moreover, this is not an argument that we should be exposing children to potentially fatal diseases again. If experiencing native diseases reduces the incidence of atopy, then the task of immunologists must be to develop vaccines that mimic the positive effects of infection. (Emphasis added.)</blockquote><h3 id="">Studies do show that vaccines cause allergies</h3>As we've <a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/whos-really-responsible-for-vaccine-hesitancy-dr-hotez" id="">learned</a> from Dr. Stanley Plotkin and other doctors, as well as vaccinologists, the requisite studies have never been done to understand the adverse effects of vaccines, so the evidence for vaccines causing atopy that Berger claims doesn't exist may be because they never looked. Or perhaps, it's because they are ignoring "inconvenient" evidence — many studies confirmed that vaccines cause food and other allergies, as Rodef Shalom 613 <a href="https://www.rodefshalom613.org/2020/05/vaccines-and-food-allergies/" target="_blank" id="">showed</a>.<blockquote id="">Over 100 years ago, Nobel Laureate Charles Richet discovered that injecting a protein into animals (and humans) can promote a reaction that causes the body to become sensitive to that protein. Re-exposure to the same protein later on could result in severe allergic reactions—including anaphylaxis.”</blockquote><blockquote id="">Today we have an unprecedented, and growing, number of children (and adults) who are allergic to foods, many of whom have anaphylactic reactions. While there are many probable triggers, one of the most important may be vaccines. Vaccines contain a number of food proteins such as hydrolyzed casein and casamino acids (from dairy), bovine serum albumin (from cows), yeast protein, hydrolyzed gelatin (from cows or fish), egg protein, soy peptone broth, and more. Polysorbate 80, sorbitol, and other synthetic ingredients in vaccines may be sourced from a variety of foods including coconut, wheat, corn, and legume and nut oils. Since these proteins are injected into the bloodstream, rather than going through and processed by the digestive system, the body reacts to them as foreign materials and activates the immune system against them. </blockquote><blockquote id=""> . . .</blockquote><blockquote id=""> Based on the work of Richet, other scientists have determined that food proteins in vaccines can induce allergies:</blockquote><blockquote id="">◾ Wells, 1908 – Injecting as little as 50 ng of ovalbumin into guinea pigs caused sensitization. Later injections of ovalbumin resulted in an allergic reaction. Ovalbumin is an egg protein used in vaccine manufacture. ◾ 1940, Cooke et al. – Found that allergy was caused by the tetanus vaccine. [The allergen was a plant protein [such as from peanuts and soy].] ◾ 1952, Ratner – Found a significant increase in anti-ovalbumin antibodies caused by egg protein in the influenza vaccine. ◾ 1999, Nakayama et al. – Found evidence of a causal relationship between administration of the DTaP vaccine and the development of gelatin allergy. Nakayama also observed that “… gelatin content in DTaP (48-200 mcg) was sufficient to cause sensitization but not enough to cause elicitation. MMR contained enough gelatin (0.2%) to result in elicitation.</blockquote><blockquote id="">. . . </blockquote><blockquote id="">◾ 2018 – Dr. Stanley Plotkin, one of the world’s top vaccinologists admitted in a deposition hearing that injecting calf serum could create allergies to cow products. . . . All three types of the MMRV vaccine ProQuad have bovine calf serum, as does the IPV vaccine Ipol, the refrigerator stable Varivax, and both forms of Zostavax. Other vaccines contain bovine serum and fetal calf serum. (Emphases added.)</blockquote><h3 id="">CDC - Improved hygiene, not vaccines, responsible for reduced mortality </h3>Berger may also err in claiming that not vaccinating your child would subject them to deadly diseases. As evident from Child Health Safety's <a href="https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/#Meas_ScarlFev_etc" target="_blank" id="">graph</a> below, since the beginning of the 1900s, the mortality from childhood diseases declined by about 95% before most vaccines were rolled out. <figure id="" class="w-richtext-figure-type-image w-richtext-align-fullwidth" style="max-width:1115px" data-rt-type="image" data-rt-align="fullwidth" data-rt-max-width="1115px"><div id=""><img src="https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/66450044188dfe741d77c31e/66b3afb6e2dab2dcad77f3e8_66b3af9719f1ff2c258971cc_US%2520mortality%2520rates%2520childhealthsafetydotwordpressdotcomslashgraphsslash%2523Meas_ScarlFev_etc.jpeg" loading="lazy" alt="__wf_reserved_inherit" width="auto" height="auto" id=""></div></figure>Included in the list are scarlet fever and typhoid, for which there never have been any vaccines. Learn the Risk quoted the CDC which attributed the decline in these diseases to improved hygiene, not vaccines. "This report," it noted, "was written before the CDC became grossly intertwined with the pharmaceutical industry."<blockquote id="">“The occurrence of diseases such as cholera and typhoid dropped dramatically. In 1900, the occurrence of typhoid fever in the United States was approximately 100 cases per 100,000 people. By 1920, it had decreased to 33.8 cases per 100,000 people. In 2006, it had decreased to 0.1 cases per 100,000 people (only 353 cases) with approximately 75% occurring among international travelers.</blockquote><blockquote id="">Typhoid fever decreased rapidly in cities from Baltimore to Chicago as water disinfection and treatment was instituted. This decrease in illness is credited to the implementation of drinking water disinfection and treatment, improving the quality of source water, and improvements in sanitation and hygiene.</blockquote><blockquote id="">It is because of these successes that we can celebrate over a century of public drinking water disinfection and treatment – one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.”</blockquote>The following <a href="https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/#Meas_ScarlFev_etc" target="_blank" id="">graph</a>, from Child Health Safety, is the same as above with the addition of tuberculosis, influenza and pneumonia, including the big flu spike in 1918.<figure id="" class="w-richtext-figure-type-image w-richtext-align-fullwidth" style="max-width:1116px" data-rt-type="image" data-rt-align="fullwidth" data-rt-max-width="1116px"><div id=""><img src="https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/66450044188dfe741d77c31e/66b3a07a8c6033d104d3e660_66b39badae5a39d5044b5f84_United%2520States%2520Disease%2520Mortality%2520Rates%2520with%2520flu%2520tuberculosis%2520and%2520pneumonia.jpeg" loading="lazy" alt="__wf_reserved_inherit" width="auto" height="auto" id=""></div></figure><h2 id="">The immune system — much more complex than vaccinologists recognize </h2>The immune system, however, is more than just these two systems which vaccinologists focus on almost exclusively. But as Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, PhD (M.I.T.) explains, in the video below, the theory of the immune system being used by vaccinologists hasn't changed much in the past 70 — 100 years. (Edited for clarity.)<blockquote id="">The theory of the immune system that's used dates back to 1915 . . . &nbsp;about 100 plus years old or if you want to give them a little bit better about . . . &nbsp;70 years now. . . . So before we go into really talking about what the modern immune system looks like, let's really educate you on what the concept of the immune system that's 100 to 70 years old that's being used today, so you understand . . &nbsp;the backward science that's being used to &nbsp;look at things like vaccine intervention</blockquote>He demonstrates how vaccines fit into the picture and concludes with the observation that there has never has been a risk-benefit assessment done to make sure the vaccines aren't causing more harm than good, especially since vaccination is expected to create herd immunity, to vaccinate the many to protect the few with compromised immune systems or who cannot be vaccinated. In light of the complexity and intricacy of the immune system really is, another assertion by Berger, that "the task of immunologists must be to develop vaccines that mimic the positive effects of infection," may be an impossibility.<div data-rt-embed-type='true'><iframe width="1004" height="565" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yYQ0lwzFgu8" title="MIT PhD Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Explains the Reality of the Modern Immune System" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>‍The information contained in this article is for educational and information purposes only and is not intended as health, medical, financial or legal advice. Always consult a physician, lawyer or other qualified professional regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition, health objectives or legal or financial issues.‍Related articles:<a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/aborted-fetal-cells-and-vaccines---a-scandal-much-bigger-than-pfizers-whistleblower-ever-imagined" id="">‍</a><ul id=""><li id=""><a href="" id="">Who's really responsible for vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Hotez?</a></li><li id="">‍<a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/saving-children-or-saving-the-vaccine-program" id="">Saving children or saving the vaccine program?</a></li><li id=""><a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/aborted-fetal-cells-and-vaccines---a-scandal-much-bigger-than-pfizers-whistleblower-ever-imagined" id="">Aborted fetal cells and vaccines - a scandal much bigger than Pfizer's whistleblower ever imagined</a>‍</li></ul>

A modern understanding of the immune system turns vaccine science on its head

Protecting your
Medical Freedom
and Civil Liberties

Fischer Case

WHO Controls WHO?

Latest Work

Are vaccines set to replace antibiotics?

A modern understanding of the immune system turns vaccine science on its head

Don’t just reject the Pandemic Treaty – Get US Out! Of the WHO

The Constitution's last stand?

Latest Videos

How Much IsYour Freedom Worth?